If high latitude sites sized PV systems to supply heel season demand ie. spring and fall, there would be a huge surplus in the summer that could be applied to splitting water into hydrogen, synthetic jet fuel and other storage.
Who wants one in their back yard?
I scanned one of the google results and found that they are mini reactors employing the same fuels and principals as their larger ancestors-
Still unanswered are the bottom 7 questions.
Let's see the goods.
Also to be answered is how to eliminate human error and the unforseeable.
Once the true total life cycle costs for nuke energy are divulged and the full spectrum of forseeable risks are considered then the pragmatic (practical/sensible) person can weigh that against other available energy.
I've seen too much empirical evidence that anthroponuclear pollution is horrific, and half lives can be an awfully long time.
Unfortunately it seems unlikely the industry will ever come up with a perfect solution for radioactive waste.
Reposting this rather clever ditty- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axTvIndYwbU
What do slowpokes do with their waste- what if a meteor hit one?
Do they carry enough insurance to remedy a worst case scenario?
What will be their final cost per kilowatt hr. factoring all costs and including all hidden subsidies?
Let's us start a Mutant Gallery!!
I cannot find any info on the "dozens of small reactors scattered across Canada for decades". Can you provide a link with that info? According to the article below and www.nuclearfaq.ca there are currently 8.
Here's an article from 4/15/11 about micro nukes in Canada - http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/news/...nunavut-nuclear.html
Part of it is optimistic about the future of micro reactors, but as you read the article you can see how unproven, how far off it would be and how the costs are unknown. Below are a few quotes from the article
"We've certainly been approached by different parties and groups that are in the regulation process to get mini-nuclear reactors approved in Canada. It's something that has a huge process to go through before we could consider it, but if what the proponents say about mini-nuclear is true we would certainly be interested in it, if the technology was there and the safety was there,"
"A lot of money could be on the line: Mackey said a recent proposal for a hydro-electric power plant in Iqaluit was estimated to cost $200 to $500 million over the next 40 years, while some competing micro-nuclear designs pitched to QEC have promised to meet the same energy needs for $15 million over the same period.
Of course, with no operational history to draw on, the numbers put out by the micro-nuclear industry are likely to be best-case scenarios."
"Experts say they are not only economical, but also much safer than conventional designs — although no one has taken the steps to build one yet."
"The idea is not wholly theoretical. Small nuclear reactors already exist in Canada, with a half-dozen Canadian-built SLOWPOKE reactors currently in use by Canadian schools such as the University of Alberta for research purposes."
"Built in the 1970s by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the shoebox-sized SLOWPOKE reactors are only powerful enough to heat a bathtub full of water (20 KW). AECL did try to develop a more powerful version in the 1980s meant for district heating, but it failed to catch on when natural gas prices dropped."
Given the time and investment required to license and build a nuclear plant, even a small one, discussion and planning would have to start soon if territories like Nunavut want to go down a nuclear path within the next decade or so. Yet the many unknowns make the choice a tough one, even for power-starved communities."
"While advocates of the technology, such as Lang, theorize small reactors should be able to produce power in a cost range between six and 30 cents per kWh, these numbers are impossible to be certain of until a working reactor is put into operation."
And here's an interesting read on small modular reactors
john galt won't consider 'information' or ideas that don't support his POV.
Micro coal is happening on this pacific island, local coal is used by local greenhouses for heat-
They should be using 'waste' wood.
And, of course, steam started small and is largely the medium used by even the biggest nuke plant by which heat is converted to electricity-
Steam is incredibly adaptable.
When (if ever) the true total life cycle costs for nuke energy are known and the full spectrum of forseeable risks considered then the pragmatic person can weigh nuclear against other available energy.
In the absence of sound data about total life cycle costs and with overwhelming proof of the terrible results of the pollution, what sensible conclusions can be made-
Yes- Canada should be forging ahead with 'green' technologies-
And I think shoveling public treasure to O&G companies to do so a very unsound idea-
Originally posted by john galt:
Either no subsidies or subsidies applied equally across the board.
Keep in mind however that the oil & gas industry is a MAJOR contributor to Canada's tax revenue and employment. Drastically cutting their subsidies could be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I'd like to see the O&G industry financially encouraged to invest some of their profits in alternatives.
Just to keep things in perspective, the coal industry is just as polluting if not more so than the O&G industry. CO2 is NOT toxic pollution.
Toxic Pollution tax, yes. Carbon tax, no."
Certainly the Nuke industry should be taxed to death.
Go NDP! (Nuclear Disarmament Party)
For someone that goes on so much about a percentage of bio reducing emissions and as someone that seems so in favour of saving the planet and all that green feelgood stuff, I'm really amazed at how far you have your head buried in the sand and the dodging and weaving you are doing here to avid the direct questions put to you.
I have been following teh Fukushima disaster every day since it happened and there is no doubt what so ever that it is a catastrophe for the planet on a scale never seen before no matter how the vested interest want to spin it.
You say learn to do google searches, that I have certainly done and the amount of evidence, and I emphasize EVIDENCE as to the amount of pollution this has caused is overwhelming. Anyone that hasn't got their head up the horses backside well knows Chernobyl has caused the death of close enough to a million people. Likewise, the facts are there as to how much nuclear fuel was involved in that and the output and how much is involved at Fukushima.
the governments and press are trying to spin that there were differences between the 2 calamity's but it is now coming to light that not all the so called Hydrogen explosions were that at all and that in face at least one of the reactors went up in a NUCLEAR fueled detonation and took tons of the highly poisonous spent fuel rods with it. The facts are there as to where fuel particles have been found, the isotopes which have been tracked that are known to only be able to be created in nuclear detonation and the amounts of material involved.
Now the media, governments and people like yourself can spin, dismiss and ignore the facts all you like but the people who follow your advise and are objective and search beyond the vested interest media reports can see the facts and what a mind numbing horror of an event this is.
There has been smokescreens of this disaster being hyped up by the media when in fact the complete opposite is obviously true. I believe the governments and authorities have also been downplaying thsi because if the truth were to come out, there well could be anarchy over what is yet to come but will be dismissed, buried, denied and hushed up.
And in the face of things, as much as I am against being conned, I think this may well be for the best.
I think the world has already been changed and millions have already had their death warrants signed. I think the whole calamity of this is so dire that there is nothing that can be done about so its gone beyond the point of worrying because so many people are stuffed and that is that.
You can spin coal and any other energy source any damn way you please but anyone with half a brain can see there is no remote link to the damage it is capable of and nuclear can do and has already done. I guess if a person can con themselves into believing the official death tool from Chernoybl as being 50 or a hundred as the authorities say, then you can believe that nukes are safe and coal poses a greater danger.
Perhaps all those that think nuke power is so safe should be made to put their convictions where their mouths are and go live in the areas that are now going to be uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. They can live off the food grown and raised in these areas and eat the fish from teh oceans that we are told are also safe and idiotic comparisons to X-rays and other such irrelevant hog washing is being applied to .
After following this Fukushima disaster for so long and reading so much about it, it's my opinion that the thing is just such a disaster those in charge can't possibly admit to it because it will cause dissension and uprising that will be uncontrollable and change things forever.
Probably best to let half the world quietly slip away and deny the real cause and let those that do somehow survive live in relative calm. May as well keep the population thinking and arguing over the what ifs than let them in on the already happend and what fate lies in front of them.
With the radioactivity so far spread around the globe and without doubt going to affect so many millions, there is little need to worry about global warming and over population and all those other things. the world is now on a whole new and unprecedented playing field.
It will be real interesting to see in years to come, if the truth is ever told, how the figures for average life expectancy, cancer deaths and a whole load of other statistics change.
No doubt you'll have a smart and dismissive retort for what I have said here and I certainly wish i could have the same level of ignorance you do. For the first time in my life I really fear for the future that lies ahead for my children and what I honestly believe they will face.
All other problems I could be content there would be a work around but this one doesn't even begin to have the remotest solution. It genuinely brings a tear to my eye to think of the things that are going to change in the world and the suffering and hardship i believe my kids are going to face.
I hope one day that the people responsible are bought to justice and the ignorant fools that believed and supported them also get to stand accountable for their incredible stupidity.
Canada's Tar Sands, second biggest known oil reserve in the world, require so much energy to extract that they want to use nuclear-
"When you discover the horse you are riding has died, dismount!"
Based on your participation in this discussion I thought you were interested in debating the various issues surrounding nuclear energy, I guess I was mistaken. That's too bad, nuclear power has many issues that other forms of energy do not, no matter what size the reactors are. If you have a good argument as to why nuclear is a good idea, other then it's a good idea, then why not address the questions posed? For example, of the 6 major problems I have associated with nuclear power you have only, sort of, addressed one - safety. While you agree that the problems listed are "quite valid" for larger (>1000 MW) nuclear plants you theorize that the small (and now "medium scale") power reactors are safe. We disagree about the safety, but at least you've sort of addressed that issue. However, you have so far completely ignored all the other arguments listed. If the small to medium nuclear plants are a fine source of electricity, to be installed at tens of thousands of places around the world, why won't you at least try to address the other arguments?
The CANDU creates tritium and plutonium which are critical components of a nuclear bomb. Based on your comment above you're not concerned if Canada sells nuclear reactors to other countries and those countries use those reactors to make nuclear bombs?
From the CANDU link you provided:
"The 1998 Operation Shakti test series in India included one bomb of about 45 kT yield that India has publicly claimed was a hydrogen bomb. An offhand comment in the BARC publication Heavy Water — Properties, Production and Analysis appears to suggest that the tritium was extracted from the heavy water in the CANDU and PHWR reactors in commercial operation. Janes Intelligence Review quotes the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission as admitting to the tritium extraction plant, but refusing to comment on its use."
Other then the SLOWPOKE the link you provide there is no talk about small and "medium" nuclear power plants. You have said:
Sounds like you are concerned about nuclear plants larger then 2-10 MW, but now you're okay with nuclear plants larger then 1000MW? The latest CANDU reactor - "The ACR-1000 is an evolutionary, Generation III+, 1200 MWe class heavy water reactor". Source ACR-1000
The SLOWPOKE link you provide says "SLOWPOKE reactors are used mainly for neutron activation analysis (NAA), in research and as a commercial service, but also for teaching, training, irradiation studies, neutron radiography (at the Royal Military College of Canada) and the production of radioactive tracers". Nothing is said about any SLOWPOKES that are, or have been, used for power production. Another source says that One 2-10 MW demonstration SLOWPOKE-3 was built that "could" be used for district heating, but that project was "terminated after market interest in the SLOWPOKE heating system dwindled." Source: nuclearfaq.ca
Everything I've read so far about the SLOWPOKE shows that Canada has given up on trying to sell them for power production, so why do you keep bringing them up?
Sounds like a good idea since I don't know where you're coming from.
Google search for "tar sands slow poke" yields these interesting things-
"We discuss the potential use of CANDU technology for tar sands oil production and the potential use of SLOWPOKE reactors for district heating systems."
A true neo con paradise where they can subsidize their buddies in the nuke business to subsdize their buddies in tar sands and paint it all as green.
"we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
My sister's favourite tag, credited to the Navajo
I'll be happy to answer your questions if you answer mine.
None of those links justify the nuclear waste problem, massive cost overruns, nor the question about how a small government free marketeer can support nuclear power. You have also failed to say why you are still promoting the SLOWPOKE when the Canadian government has given up on it. And why you are now promoting the CANDU reactors when you have previously said, more then once, that you support small & "medium" nuclear plants.
You're the one defending nuclear power in this discussion, not the AECL. If you didn't want to debate the issue then why have you replied so many times to a thread entitled "nuclear power debate"?
No stones being thrown here, just asking questions.
We know that nuclear power is incredibly expensive, involving public subsidies and public risk. For all the trillions that could be sunk into nuke, why not try a new tack-
As the mighty Zeppelins once dominated transoceanic air travel but turned out to be a dead end in the evolution of human flight, nuclear power is in it's twilight-
Whenever technology evolves, the entrenched vested interests will kick and claw as their day draws to a close.
Fossil and nuke have had their day and we have the technology to progress, if we wish.
Since about 2001 the term "nuclear renaissance" has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits. At the same time, various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been identified. These include: unfavourable economics compared to other sources of energy, slowness in addressing climate change, industrial bottlenecks and personnel shortages in nuclear sector, and the unresolved nuclear waste issue. There are also concerns about more nuclear accidents, security, and nuclear weapons proliferation.
New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed and are running over-budget. China has 27 new reactors under construction, and there are also a considerable number of new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and Russia. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years".
In March 2011 the nuclear emergencies at Japan's Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and other nuclear facilities raised questions among some commentators over the future of the renaissance. Platts has reported that "the crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plants has prompted leading energy-consuming countries to review the safety of their existing reactors and cast doubt on the speed and scale of planned expansions around the world".
A study by UBS, reported on April 12, predicts that around 30 nuclear plants may be closed world-wide, with those located in seismic zones or close to national boundaries being the most likely to shut. The analysts believe that 'even pro-nuclear counties such as France will be forced to close at least two reactors to demonstrate political action and restore the public acceptability of nuclear power', noting that the events at Fukushima 'cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety'.
Can't get image to show, here it is (below)
www.airships.net/wp-content/up...enburg-bow-torch.jpgThis message has been edited. Last edited by: SUB,
What a joke. You're not a climate scientist either, but you have not problem debating anthropogenic global warming.
Apparantly you have not even looked at the links you provided because they do not address the questions I posed. For example, how can a wikipedia link answer the question, "how a small government free marketeer can support nuclear power, since nuclear power requires government intervention"? Or how can wikipedia possibly answer a personal question to you about how you support CANDU nuclear reactors, when you have made it clear that you do not support larger reactors? Etc, etc.
Nowhere in this thread have I defended fossil fuels, or said this is a discussion about nuclear vs fossil fuels, and it's not. See the first post in this thread to see what it's about. You're the one who keeps bringing up coal.
Did a lawyer tell you to say that?
That's rich, now you're saying my concern with nuclear is something that I've never mentioned. However, a large tsunami was a big pie-in-the-sky-what-if, and we're seeing how that worked out.
I've posed questions, no legal, or technical background required, just your personal opinion, and you just dance around them as if you are incapable of answering simple direct questions. Maybe it's because my questions call your own personal justification of nuclear power into question, but we don't know that because you seem to be incapable of answering simple direct questions.
Short Mountain puts out about 2MW.
The Grand Coulee Dam puts out about 6GW (6,465 MW).
Some of the smaller dams such as Leaburg puts out about 15MW.
The Biglow Canyon Wind farm generates between 150 and 450 MW
Typical Iceland Geothermal Generators run on the order of 30 - 100 MW each.
The University of Oregon used to generate all of its power and heat using Wood (Hog Fuel), but due to someone's bright idea, changed over to fossil fuel based natural gas.
Whenever I pass the Kingsford briquette plant in the evening, I see open flames coming out of the top of one of their smokestacks. I assume they have troubles with carbon monoxide and other emissions so they may need very hot flames, but I wonder why they don't choose to add a small generator to the top of their stack. Such renewable projects might pay for themselves plus some.
Wind and solar, of course, are dependent on the weather. I.E. Don't plan on a solar installation generating much power in the middle of Antarctica during the winter.
However, if every house in a city of 1 Million houses added a 1KW solar system to the roof, the peak power generation would be about 1 GW. Average, of course, would be much less.
If one was designing a power generation network, one would need to mix resources.
Solar - dependent on sun, no adjustment. Needs to be highest priority for grid supply.
Likewise, wind is also dependent on the wind with no adjustment.
A Natural Gas system such as Short Mountain could presumably be configured to vary output dependent on demand, assuming it had adequate collection and storage facilities.
Water Flow could also be varied somewhat, although it can't really be completely shut off.
I assume coal generators can also vary output, although steam driven plants would have a bit of a momentum effect.
Anyway, one could design a way to interconnect and mix resources to provide the grid needs, maximizing the use of renewable resources. There have been programs to encourage industrial users such as aluminum plants to take off-peak power.
Good points Keelec.
The real key to getting off nuclear, & fossil fuels, is to focus on decentralization, renewables, and a strong emphasis on energy efficiency and conservation. The Rocky Mountain Institute refers to this as a "soft energy path".
Shaun, I will do my best to answer or at least address your major questions head on, however often times lawyers will ask yes or no questions in order to produce the outcome of choice, meaning that often static questions/answers seldom adequately address the spirit of an inherently dynamic issue:
Anyone that has reviewed my profile will know that my occupation for the last 27 years has been in Nuclear Power. As a personal passion and a belief in locally produced cleaner energy I took on Biodiesel production working to develop an elegant regenerative model.
Having said this I realized from the beginning (perhaps because of my experience in Nuclear Power) that Biodiesel is NOT the "answer" (if there really is such a thing) but instead a bridge technology and even more it is social-economic bridge. I say this because much like the discovery of radiation and Atomic Power captured the imagination of millions in the mid 20th century; Biodiesel seems also to have a magical alchemy, a mystique if you will about it, which inspires people. Biodiesel, particularly made from used cooking oil inspires people to believe in the possibility of Green Energy and a better future – Waste to Fuel.
In the 20th century we have had Radio, Penicillin, Transistors, Atomic energy and the Apollo Moon Mission all these and a number of others have allowed US to believe in ourselves but every one of these poses significant undetermined future risk from super killer bacteria to AI & Judgment Day.
So in the 50’s thru the 70’s embracing Nuclear Power was absolutely the right thing to do for a multitude of reasons and I believe we are still crossing the bridge.
Question #1: DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant is dual unit site with 2 ~ 1250 MegaWatt (MW) reactors it was completed around 1981 with huge cost over runs due to a number of factors not the least of which was 3 Mile Island’s partial meltdown in 1979 and subsequent industry wide retrofits. It completely paid for itself by ~1993. It currently generates almost 2 million in revenue a day and at a cost of ~5 cents per kilowatt hour (with government subsidies of course) – It will have approx. 25 years of pure profit and a whopping amount of cheap MW – Cheap MegaWatts that are currently and in the near future much needed. This is not to mention the growing need for MegaWatts in China and India. Expensive fuel and expensive electric power have extremely far reaching economic consequences to current system.
The Electric Power Market doesn’t operate like a common commodity or free market system since in large part the power companies have a monopoly on the product – deregulation of the electric industry is a mess and for good reason since ENRON partly failed because of its treatment of Electric Energy like a commodity and then leveraging that asset in “creative” ways. And none of this addresses the infrastructure necessary for mass electric power distribution which is a major factor effecting fair competition but is what makes our North American electric power system the most reliable in the world.
We can’t go back and no matter what conspiracies you may believe concerning the repression of different energy technologies that could save the world, our current SYSTEM (everything that makes up our “modern” life style) is incredibly complex and relies on the management of financial risk in to the future. This requires predictability, reliability and of course insurance/hedges…
Now to address a couple other thoughts presented in this forum:
Nuclear Fuel is being found outside Fukushima but this is NOT indicative of an “atomic explosion”.
First, the Spent Fuel Pools were located on the top floors of 4 reactors and at least one of them was blown apart in the hydrogen explosion this could and probably resulted in used nuclear fuel being dispersed around the site and maybe beyond. We have inside communication indicating that this did happen.
Secondly, a standard steam “explosion” could shoot used nuclear fuel a huge distance from the plant as well and since the fuel makes its own heat and they were dumping water on it and its flow path was highly irregular, it’s quite possible to have some kind of extreme steam pressure jetting out of the containment vessel.
Lastly, for the sake of argument I will agree that millions of human lives will be impacted by the Nuclear Accidents past, present or future however how many billions of lives have, are and will benefit or even be born due to Nuclear Power. Life is messy how do you adequately assess this kind of accounting – cost vs. benefit.
The dropping of the Atomic Bombs in Japan – was it an act of US Imperialism or was it done to minimize the total lives to be lost if the War was to drag out???
Causing a Regenerative Economy
I'm glad you joined the debate, especially since you are employed in the nuclear industry. My response to the questions you posed are below.
I would say that any lives that have "benefited" from nuclear power could just have easily been benefited by any of a number of other electricity sources available. Imagine the benefit, if instead of giving the billions/trillions of government subisidies to the nuclear industry, we gave those subsidies to renewable/efficiency/conservation industries. My point is that I don't believe that anyone can say that any person was directly, or indirectly, benefited by nuclear energy that wouldn't have otherwise benefited if nuclear energy never existed. Maybe that would mean that there would be more fossil fuel plants, but nuclear energy was not required to get us to where we are today. And I think an argument can be made that nuclear energy is, at least, partially responsible for putting off the day when we can move towards being a renewable energy society.
I guess I don't understand how this relates to the nuclear power debate?
I didn't respond to this in my previous post because I don't see a question, but maybe this is a question about the cost effectiveness of nuclear power. You may be right about your cost projections of DC Cook, but in February I bet the same could have been said about Fukushima. Also, your "pure profit" comments do not take into account the long term storage of the nuclear waste. Or do your numbers assume US taxpayers as a whole will foot the bill for the hundreds/thousands of years of storage? Can you provide any source for your financial statements of DC Cook?
As for DC Cook, the website http://www.cookinfo.com/cookplant.htm says that Unit 1 began operation in 1975 & Unit 2 in 1978, so 3 Mile Island could not have been a factor in any cost overruns, but was a factor in retrofitting after TMI. You're comments about DC Cook assume it will operate for the next 25 years trouble free, or nearly trouble free, but I seriously doubt that's the case. From 1997 to 2000 DC Cook was shutdown because the NRC found DC Cook to have a number of problems that questioned the ability of the plant to properly shut down in case of an accident. 3 years...
As someone who is living off-grid, and gets most of our energy from solar PV (we have a propane stove & on demand water heater - we are installing a solar water heater later this year), I see first hand the cost effectiveness, reliability, and safety of renewables. I've been advocating renewables for the past 20 plus years, but now I see for myself how practical they are, and we have a small system (1.38kw).
I don't believe I have talked about any conspiracies, although I believe there is one "conspiracy" and that is a conspiracy of complacency.
I also did not say there was an "atomic explosion" at Fukushima. As we have seen at Chernobyl & now Fukushima, an atomic explosion at a nuclear plant is not required to create a catastrophic event.
Sorry for the late entry Shaun but I do want to clear up some loose ends.
1) DC Cook did have to make the retrofits after they started up but that's what makes the retrofits so expensive however even with these exceptionally expensive redesigns the plant still paid for itself in record time. The only reason to point this out is to counter the idea that the high cost of building nuclear power plants isn't economical.
2) DC Cook was shut down for 3 years and could possibly be shut down again during its long life of operation but this is testiment to the rigor of the nuclear power oversight in this country (not even addressing the political reasons DC Cook was shut down for that many years). Regardless, it is and will be very economical and safely operated over its life time.
3) After WWII, the US needed a solution and needed a solution fast to its burgeoning electric consumption. In the 1950's Nuclear Power was the Alternative Energy source, the country had to choose between Nuclear and/or much more Coal - solar, wind etc weren't even viable options at this time. Today, Nuclear power is responsible for approx. 20% of the nations electric power and this power is the back bone of the electric grid since it is the most reliable and stable power source (the importance and significance of this back-bone over the last 30 years is most likely underestimated by the public at large). Regardless I am definitely glad that as a country we chose to pursuit nuclear power vs. much more coal especially since the average home in this country uses approx. 1000-1500 KW-hrs per month. Compare this to your 1.38 KW-hrs solar PV unit - even with a 33% subsidy by the US Gov. and a 30% rebate from local utilities, solar PV doesn't achieve payback for the average home for 2 to 5 years.
4)Long-term storage of highly radioactive fuel is a problem but mostly because the US Government has not been successful in fulfilling on its promise to the american people and the the electric power industry to provide a long-term solution/storage of the spent fuel. The electric power industry did not want to take on nuclear power until the US Gov. contractually promised to provide a national repository (a.k.a. Yucca Mountain) by X date - which didn't and most likely never will happen. I would agree that managing this kind of waste 10,000 years into the future is unprecedented in human history and poses the most significant technical problem to overcome. But as I said in my earlier post, many technologies pose significant problems to be overcome or managed into the future and we must believe in our ability to do this because it is this belief and this kind of impetus that bring us together and drive our future.
5) I didn't say you thought the reactors exploded only that other people in the forum's thread had said something to that effect and I was addressing their concerns.
6) Lastly, my comment about the atomic bomb being used for over all good vs. imperialism is only meant to amplify the messy nature of trying to account for our technological choices. I believe everyone would wish that there had never been the preceived need for the atomic bomb but due to the historical forces at work in the 1930's and 40's an atomic weapon was immanent - so the choice was made by our government (at the prompting of Albert Eistein) to undertake this grave project. Which then lead to us through a chain of events leading us to dropping the first atomic weapon. A person can either believe that this choice was undertaken with the greatest level of scrutiny and moral reflection or not. I choose to believe we made the choice based on the need to shorten (end) the overall war and save a significant number of lives both for the Japaneese and the US. I believe this just like I believe we undertook nuclear power in this country because it served the greatest overall good but this is difficult to prove through some kind of accounting...
Causing a Regenerative Economy
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3|